[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15998-16002]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3454, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the bill (S. 3454) to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 
     for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to 
     prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 
     and for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have enacted a National Defense 
Authorization Act every year for the last 48 years, and we need to do 
the same this year. I hope we can at least make some progress during 
the next few days and weeks on this bill.
  This year's bill would continue the increases in compensation and 
quality of life that our service men and women and their families 
deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military 
operations around the world.
  For example, the bill would extend over 30 types of bonuses and 
special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, reenlistment, and 
continued service by Active-Duty and Reserve military personnel.
  The bill would authorize continued TRICARE coverage for eligible 
dependents of servicemembers up to age 26.
  The bill would improve care for our wounded warriors by addressing 
inequities in rules for involuntary administrative separations based on 
medical conditions and requiring new education and training programs on 
the use of pharmaceuticals for patients in wounded warrior units.
  The bill would authorize and allow the waiver of maximum age 
limitations to enable certain highly qualified enlisted members who 
served in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom to 
enter the military service academies.
  The bill also includes important funding and authorities needed to 
provide our troops the equipment and support they will continue to need 
as long as they remain on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  For example, the bill would enhance the military's ability to rapidly 
acquire and field new capabilities in response to urgent needs on the 
battlefield by expanding the authority of the Department of Defense to 
waive statutory requirements when urgently needed to save lives on the 
battlefield.
  The bill would fully fund the President's request to train and equip 
the Afghan National Army and Afghan Police--growing the capabilities of 
these security forces to prepare them to take over increased 
responsibility for Afghanistan's security.
  The bill would extend for another year the authority for the 
Secretary of Defense to transfer equipment coming out of Iraq as our 
troops withdraw to the security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan, 
providing through that transfer an important tool for our commanders 
looking to accelerate the growth of these security forces.
  The bill contains a number of provisions that will help improve the 
management of the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies.
  For example, the bill would require the Department of Defense to 
establish a comprehensive process for evaluating and addressing urgent 
operational needs identified on the battlefield.
  The bill would address shortcomings in the management of private 
security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan by making contractors 
expressly responsible for the conduct of their subcontractors and 
establishing specific contractual remedies for failures to comply with 
the requirements and directives.
  The bill would require the Department of Defense to establish 
acquisition baselines for the Missile Defense Agency's programs and 
provide annual reports to Congress on progress toward achieving those 
baselines.
  The bill also includes important legislative provisions that would 
promote DOD's cybersecurity and energy security efforts--two important 
initiatives that would help strengthen our national defense and our 
Nation.
  This bill does include a handful of contentious provisions on which 
there is disagreement in the Senate. These provisions were debated in 
committee. I expect them to be debated again on

[[Page 15999]]

the Senate floor, if we can proceed tomorrow, as I hope we can. We are 
going to have votes on a number of those issues and other contentious 
issues, and the Senate will work its will if we are allowed to get to 
the point where we can debate this bill.
  One of the issues which has been raised is whether amendments should 
be offered or are offerable to this bill, such as the DREAM Act, which 
are not relevant to the bill. The Senator from Arizona recently said 
the following, and he has repeated it:

       [F]or many, many years, we never put any extraneous items 
     on the [DOD authorization] bill, because it was so important 
     to defense and we just didn't allow it.

  He continued:

       Starting last year, Carl Levin and Harry Reid put hate 
     crimes on it.

  The Senator from Arizona is incorrect. He is incorrect on a number of 
accounts. First of all, the Senate previously considered hate crimes 
amendments to the national defense authorization bill. We did it in 
2001. We did it in 2005. We did it again in 2008 on the national 
defense authorization bill. It was not the first time that hate crimes 
was added to the defense authorization bill, and each time the hate 
crimes amendment was approved by overwhelming bipartisan votes: 57 to 
42, 65 to 33, and 60 to 39. It received anywhere from 8 to 18 
Republican votes. The only thing that was new about last year's action 
relative to hate crimes was that for the first time the provision was 
not dropped in conference. It was included in the enacted legislation.
  Secondly, the Senator from Arizona is incorrect when he says ``we 
never put any extraneous items on the [defense authorization] bill . . 
. we just didn't allow it'' is incorrect for another reason. During our 
consideration of Defense Authorization Acts over the last dozen years, 
and before, the Senate has debated other amendments, nonrelevant 
amendments, on many issues, including on concealed weapons, indecency 
standards, the extension of pay-go budget procedures, and secret holds 
on nominations, among other issues.
  As a matter of fact, in the year 2000, the Senator from Arizona 
offered a nonrelevant amendment to the defense authorization bill. His 
amendment proposed to require campaign finance disclosure by the so-
called 527 organizations as an amendment to national defense 
authorization. Senator Warner opposed it, as floor manager of the bill. 
Senator Warner, as chairman and floor manager, argued it was not 
relevant to the bill. Indeed, Senator Warner argued it could endanger 
the passage of the bill and urged Senator McCain not to offer that 
nonrelevant amendment. Senator McCain's response:

       I yield to no one in this body as to my advocacy for our 
     Nation's defense and the men and women in the military.

  He continued:

       But if we want to give these men and women in the military 
     confidence in their Government, we should have fully 
     disclosed who it is that contributes to the political 
     campaigns.

  When Senator Warner was asked if he was upset with Senator McCain for 
tying up the Senate with nonrelevant amendments on the defense 
authorization bill, Senator Warner stated:

       I don't get upset at anything. The man--

  The Senator he is referring to, Senator McCain--

     is acting under the rules.

  I supported the McCain amendment at that time, and I also supported 
the right of the Senator from Arizona to offer it, not because it was 
relevant to the defense authorization bill--it was not--but because it 
was the only opportunity, apparently, to consider that bill, and it was 
the right thing to do, in my judgment.
  By a vote of 57 to 42, the Senate agreed, and the nonrelevant McCain 
amendment was adopted to the defense authorization bill. By the way, by 
comparison, last year's hate crimes amendment was adopted by a vote of 
63 to 28.
  Particular concern has also been expressed about the committee's 
decision to cut $1 billion of the $2 billion that the President 
requested for the Iraq Security Forces Fund. This decision of the 
committee was consistent with the previously expressed view of the 
Armed Services Committee and of the Congress that the Government of 
Iraq should assume a greater responsibility for the financial burden of 
building Iraqi security forces as U.S. forces draw down.
  The Iraqis are in a better position to pay for their defense than we 
are. Last year, we provided only $1 billion. We should not be 
increasing that amount as Iraqi resources and finances get stronger and 
their oil revenues get higher.
  The American taxpayers have already paid over $18 billion to build 
the capacity of the Iraqi Army and police. By contrast, the Government 
of Iraq has failed to adequately invest in its own security forces. 
According to a recent DOD report, the Iraqi Ministry of Defense 
requested $7.4 billion in 2010, but the Ministry of Finance approved 
only $4.9 billion, choosing to fund little more than personnel costs 
and to rely almost entirely on the United States to pay for even the 
most basic equipment needed by the Iraqi Army. Iraq, which according to 
GAO analysis, has a cumulative budget surplus of $52 billion through 
the end of fiscal year 2009 and as much as $5 billion in unspent 
security funds, should be well positioned to pay for its own military 
equipment instead of coming to us for large handouts.
  The argument has been made that the money the committee cut from the 
Iraqi Security Forces Fund was used to pay for porkbarrel projects. 
However, the definition of ``porkbarrel projects'' used for this 
purpose appears to be anything other than what the administration 
requests. I question why spending money on Iraqi troops should be 
considered good government, but if we spend the same amount of money on 
our own military instead, it is considered wasteful porkbarrel 
spending. We could have no higher priority as a committee or as a 
Congress than supporting our own defense, and I am proud of the fact 
that our bill would increase the money available for this purpose by 
cutting back on subsidies for the Iraqis.
  Here is the process we use in our committee. This is how we 
accomplish where we are today. Every year, our committee staff works 
hard to identify excess or unneeded spending in the Defense budget 
request. For example, we identify unsuccessful programs where we appear 
to be sending good money after bad, programs that are getting money 
before they need it or are getting more money than they can reasonably 
spend in a year; programs that cannot spend all the money they have 
because of schedule delays, and programs that are scheduled to receive 
funding increases, even though the requirement is declining. We would 
not be doing our job for the Congress and the American people if we 
fail to undertake a thorough review and to cut excess or unneeded 
spending from the budget. When we find unneeded spending, we are then 
able to shift it to support added force structure or force 
modernization and the quality of life for our troops. This is much the 
same process that the Secretary of Defense goes through to identify 
excess overhead, duplicative programs and other wasteful spending and 
shift the funds to higher priority defense needs.
  This year, we reviewed the Department's $725 billion budget proposal 
and identified several billion dollars of unneeded spending--just over 
one-half of 1 percent of the total budget. What did we spend the money 
on? Mainly modernizing weapons systems, supporting readiness, and 
supporting the troops. More specifically, this is what the committee 
proposes to spend the money on that was cut as unneeded from other 
programs.
  This is a relatively long list, but I do wish to give a fairly 
extensive list of what the additional spending was by the Armed 
Services Committee when we found that some of the spending in the 
budget was unneeded for the reasons I just gave.
  Here is a list: $532 million to fully fund high-priority requirements 
identified by the Chief of Naval Operations for ship depot maintenance, 
aircraft depot maintenance, and spare parts; $363 million to improve 
missile defense capabilities against existing regional missile threats 
and provide better protection against such missiles for our

[[Page 16000]]

deployed forces and our allies; $337 million to fully fund high 
priority weapons sustainment and depot maintenance requirements 
identified by the Air Force Chief of Staff; $325 million to procure 
additional F-18 aircraft to address a looming shortfall of strike 
fighter aircraft and take advantage of better prices we will get 
through a multiyear contract; $310 million for new facilities, all of 
which meet the McCain-Glenn screening requirements for military 
construction and have been determined by the military to be mission 
essential, to support operations and training, and ensure that our 
troops are ready for deployment; $244 million to augment the capability 
of our communications satellites, continue the development of infrared 
sensors for next-generation satellites, and provide for improved space 
protection and space situational awareness; $213 million for advanced 
technologies, for advanced weapons systems, including basic and applied 
research and materials, science for lighter and stronger materials, new 
sensors, lasers, and information technology; $184 million for unfunded 
procurement priorities identified by the Army Chief of Staff to meet 
force protection, mobility, communication, and other needs for deployed 
forces in Afghanistan, including the Line of Communication Bridge, the 
Lightweight Counter-Mortar Radar, the Defense Advanced Global 
Positioning System Receiver, the Tactical Local Area Network, and the 
Forward Entry Device for the artillery tactical data system; $170 
million for the Department's Energy Conservation Improvement Program to 
competitively fund meritorious programs that have a savings-to-
investment ratio of 1.25 or higher and a simple payback period of 10 
years or less; $113 million for unfunded requirements identified by the 
Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command for ground mobility 
vehicles, deployable communications equipment, thermal and night vision 
goggles, and nonlethal weapons technologies; $102 million to continue 
the JSTARS reengining program to ensure that these aircraft have the 
onstation capability needed to provide real-time intelligence to our 
ground forces engaged in combat; $100 million to enhance the safety and 
reliability of our nuclear weapons by providing funding needed for 
facility design, maintenance, and upgrades, provide diagnostic 
equipment, and address operational safety issues; $100 million for new 
quality-of-life facilities such as dormitories, emergency service 
centers, and health clinics, all of which have been determined by the 
military to be mission essential; $88 million for research and 
development to reduce the Department's dependency on fossil fuels 
through improved energy storage, power systems, renewable energy 
production, and energy efficiency in Defense programs; $78 million for 
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance activities and programs 
that are delivering critical capabilities for our troops in 
Afghanistan; $78 million to meet antiterrorism and force protection 
requirements at military bases; $76 million to improve the combat 
capability of Navy submarines; $72 million for improved medical care 
for our troops and their families, including $22 million for continuity 
of medical care and to prevent increases in fees and $50 million for 
critical medical research on trauma care, blast injuries, visual 
impairment, and other battlefield-related injuries; $71 million to 
improve the Navy's ability to operate with unmanned systems, improve 
countermeasures and improve the ability of DOD air and sea systems to 
handle threats from enemy missiles and shoulder-fired weapons and make 
operational system improvements on Navy ships; $70 million to modernize 
Navy facilities and improve their capability to support current 
operations and new technology developments; $59 million for upgrades 
for Army weapons systems to enhance operational capabilities and 
modernize the force; $58 million for cyber-security technology 
development and demonstrations to enhance protections available for 
critical DOD infrastructure and information; $57 million for advanced 
manufacturing technologies to reduce the time required to produce high-
demand items such as body and vehicle armor, IED jammers and MRAP 
vehicles and to modernize the Department of Defense test capabilities 
facilities to ensure that new weapons systems meet warfighter 
requirements; $56 million for communications facilities and special 
operations facilities, all of which have been determined by the 
military to be mission essential; $46 million for nonproliferation 
programs, including the screening of cargo containers coming into the 
United States, plutonium disposition, and related research and 
development; $45 million for Impact Aid to ensure a quality education 
for military dependents by compensating local school districts that 
lose property tax revenue due to the presence of tax-exempt military 
installations; $35 million for the National Guard to assist State and 
local law enforcement with counternarcotics operations; $34 million for 
the Department of Defense inspector general to continue growth designed 
to provide more effective oversight and help identify waste, fraud, and 
abuse in Department of Defense programs; $30 million to reduce 
technical risk and increase program performance in the Army's Paladin 
self-propelled howitzer integrated management program; $26 million for 
simulators and trainers for the Army to reduce training costs and 
increase the preparedness of our troops for the battlefield in Iraq and 
Afghanistan; and $25 million to fund a competitive program to protect 
critical mission training sites by preventing or reducing encroachment 
through the creation of compatible-use buffer zones.
  These are real military needs. These are not ``bridges to nowhere''--
quite the opposite. This year, we took $75 million that the Department 
of Defense planned to spend on military museums and spent it instead on 
more immediate military needs consistent with our committee policy that 
military museums should be funded through private donations rather than 
taxpayer funds.
  I am not going to tell the Presiding Officer or anybody else that 
every judgment the committee made was correct. There is no way I could 
agree to that. In fact, some of the decisions we made I didn't agree 
with, but I can say the money that was added was added for what we saw 
as needed measures to modernize our forces and provide for our troops. 
Others may disagree. Some may honestly believe that any spending not 
included in the administration budget, no matter how important it may 
be to the military, is wasteful. However, we will not be able to have 
that debate and vote on any amendments to the funding proposed by the 
committee unless we vote tomorrow to proceed to consideration of this 
bill.
  We currently have 50,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines 
on the ground in Iraq and roughly twice as many in Afghanistan. While 
there are some issues on which we may disagree, I think we all know we 
must provide our troops the support they need as long as they remain in 
harm's way. Senate action on the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2011 will improve the quality of life of our men and women 
in uniform. It will give them the tools they need to remain the most 
effective fighting force in the world. Most important of all, it will 
send an important message that we as a nation stand behind them and 
appreciate their service.
  I hope our colleagues will allow us to proceed to consideration of 
this bill. There obviously will be many amendments offered, some to 
change or strike the language which is in the bill. That is 
understandable. There will be some amendments aimed at adding 
provisions to the bill, and that is not unusual either. As I said, both 
relevant and nonrelevant amendments have been debated to this bill in 
the past. It is not unusual. It complicates, obviously, the life of the 
manager, but that is what we are here for, to consider amendments--both 
relevant and nonrelevant amendments--to the bill and to try to get a 
Defense bill passed.
  I hope we can make progress on this bill this week. As somebody who 
may be overly optimistic, I would love to see this bill passed prior to 
our next recess. But our goal should be to make

[[Page 16001]]

progress on this bill, and in order to do that, we will need to adopt 
cloture tomorrow. I hope the Senate does that.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be brief because I know there will 
be a lot more debate tomorrow.
  The distinguished chairman just mentioned a number of authorized 
programs that sound pretty good. They were put in without debate, 
discussion or amendments. He also left out several that might be of 
interest to taxpayers, which may be the reason why we see such anger 
about the kind of spending--out-of-control spending and unnecessary 
spending.
  Here is $1 million for foreign language correlation and translation; 
$3 million for plant-based vaccine development; $4.5 million for 
decision and energy reduction tool. The list goes on and on. Here is $5 
million for operator driving simulator; $1 million for Permafrost 
Tunnel; $2.5 million for body temperature conditioner.
  All of these, in the eyes of the chairman, are more important than 
taking care of our allies and cementing success in our operations in 
Iraq, which was a result of the surge which the chairman, of course, 
adamantly opposed.
  Here is $7.6 million for a Quiet Propulsion Load House; $3 million 
for tribology research. The list goes on and on: $8 million for a 
physical fitness center.
  By the way, none of these were requested by the Department of 
Defense.
  So we will be going into this some more tomorrow, and we will request 
an earmark for where they went--one of the key elements of it. None of 
it is completed. All of those earmarks are designated for certain 
places and certain manufacturers. It is something the people of this 
country, again, steadfastly are in opposition to.
  I was interested to hear the chairman talk about amendments being 
allowed and that there will be debate and discussion. That is not the 
message we got through the media, which the majority leader didn't 
share with us. My understanding is that we are going to take up three 
issues. He is going to fill up the tree, which means no other 
amendments will be allowed. The issues will be the secret holds, the 
DREAM Act, and, of course, don't ask, don't tell. I hope the chairman 
is accurate here because there are many issues that many Americans 
would feel are very important: treatment of terrorists, Guantanamo Bay, 
and so many other issues that affect the readiness of the men and women 
and their training and ability, as opposed to the DREAM Act and a 
repeal of don't ask, don't tell.
  Let me point out again that this issue is not on don't ask, don't 
tell, not an assessment of the effect on the readiness and morale of 
the men and women in the military. This language is a repeal, then 
signed onto by the President of the United States, the Secretary of 
Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. One wonders, 
what about the Chief of Staff of the Army? What about the Chief of 
Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Chief of 
Staff of the Air Force, all of whom have objected to this provision 
because it is being railroaded through without a proper assessment on 
the morale and effectiveness of our military?
  I read from the bill itself that this Secretary's memorandum says:

       . . . determine any impacts to military readiness, military 
     effectiveness, unit cohesion [et cetera] that may result from 
     repeal of the law.

  That may result from the repeal of the law. Every provision says that 
the law will be repealed if the President, the Secretary of Defense, 
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sign off on a report that 
doesn't assess the effect on morale and readiness of the men and women 
in the military. It would only assess impacts of repeal. That is not 
right. We are in two wars. Should we not assess the impact on the 
readiness, the morale, and effectiveness of the men and women who are 
in harm's way, who would be affected by the repeal of don't ask, don't 
tell? Should we not have that assessment?
  What the chairman has done and what the majority of the Democrats 
have done is in blatant disregard for the morale, effectiveness, 
recruitment, and retention of the men and women serving in the military 
today. Why couldn't we have done what our service chiefs want and what 
our senior enlisted people want, and that is an assessment of battle 
effectiveness and morale regarding a repeal of it, and then decide 
whether to repeal don't ask, don't tell?
  This is really a remarkable act on the part of the Democrats because 
this is a political issue, just as the DREAM Act is a political issue. 
It is a political issue. I understand the season. I understand it is 
not that far between now and the elections. But to use the Defense 
bill, which has to do with defending our national security interests 
when we are in two wars, to pursue a social agenda and legislative 
agenda to galvanize voting blocks I think is reprehensible.
  We will be talking a lot about this in the next day or so. I appeal 
to the American people, who understand what we are about here.
  I wish to return to the DREAM Act for another minute. If we enact any 
legislation that provides people with citizenship in this country 
without securing our borders, then we have placed ourselves in a 
situation where we will have more people in this country illegally and 
we will have to address that issue again. It is no longer a border 
issue; it is a national security issue. The drug cartels and the human 
smugglers have now posed a threat to our Nation's security. That is why 
our Secretary of State, just a couple weeks ago, said the situation in 
Mexico was comparable to that of Colombia in the 1980s, when they had 
an active insurgency called the FARC.
  To use the Defense authorization bill as a vehicle to enact 
legislation, which there would be numerous amendments to, there would 
be hours and hours of debate--by the way, the amendment I proposed 
about 10 years ago was a rifle shot on a specific issue. This is, of 
course, a major piece of legislation that affects at least, I am told, 
800,000 people who are living in this country illegally.
  I hope that we will return to the days I remember in the past when we 
had unlimited amendments, unlimited debate, and that we move forward in 
a bipartisan fashion on this issue. Unfortunately, the politicization 
of this very important legislation that affects our ability to fight 
and win wars is being compromised for short-term political purposes.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am going to briefly comment on a number 
of points the Senator from Arizona made. First, he read a list of items 
that he thought were wasteful items that we added to the bill. I went 
through a long list of the items we added to the bill, probably three 
pages of types of items that we added in the Armed Services Committee 
that support the troops, their readiness, their capabilities, their 
benefits.
  He suggested--in fact, stated that these spending items were put in 
the bill without debate, discussion, or amendment. I first want to 
comment on that because, as the Presiding Officer knows as a very 
valued and esteemed member of our committee, we spent days on markup. I 
think we have at least 60 amendments--at least that is my recollection.
  Every proposed funding item in this bill and every item of the bill 
and report language was shared with the minority staff at least a full 
week before the beginning of the markup. This is, by the way, about 
twice as much time as was provided by any other committee chairman I 
can remember in the

[[Page 16002]]

30-plus years I have been here in order to give the minority staff an 
opportunity to look at what the proposed markup documents were.
  We then provided the minority staff with several days to suggest 
changes to the proposed language. A number of significant changes, as a 
matter of fact, were made on the basis of those discussions and 
recommendations from the minority staff.
  After the changes were made, then the full package was provided to 
all the members of the committee and their staffs. Again, several days 
earlier than this had been done in any previous year. So every item the 
Senator from Arizona mentioned, like every other spending item in the 
bill, was subject to amendment in committee. I believe it was 2 days of 
committee deliberations. Again, dozens and dozens of amendments were 
adopted, some defeated. But a large number of amendments were dealt 
with.
  The opportunity was more than I think has historically been the case 
for the minority staff, and obviously the majority staff as well, to 
make recommendations for changes prior to the markup document being 
presented to members for amendment, and many of those changes were 
made.
  Now, just a couple of examples that the Senator from Arizona used as 
being evidence of wasteful spending that we added. One was $3 million 
for plant-based vaccine development. The background for that $3 million 
we added is the Department of Defense has been working to develop rapid 
processes for manufacturing vaccines for a variety of biological threat 
agents in order to safeguard our troops in the battlefield.
  The most promising path so far to a speedy response for new vaccines 
is the use of plants to produce millions of vaccine doses in a matter 
of weeks at a very low cost, as compared to the 6-plus months for 
standard production processes that cost many times as much.
  So that funding is very valuable funding. I do not think most 
objective observers would consider that to be pork. It will help meet 
military needs by continuing the progress toward rapid, tailored 
vaccine production for new diseases for biological threats.
  Another one which was mentioned by my friend from Arizona was the 
money we added for a physical fitness center at the Malmstrom Air Force 
Base. Now, fitness is a military requirement. According to the Air 
Force, the existing fitness center at Malmstrom Air Force Base, which 
was built in 1957, so that is now over 50 years ago, ``does not 
adequately satisfy personnel or infrastructure demands.'' The Air Force 
said in the absence of a new fitness center, ``there will continue to 
be very few options to maintain physical fitness during the winter 
months.'' The project meets the criteria established for military 
construction projects more than a decade ago by Senators Glenn and 
McCain.
  Those are just a couple of the items Senator McCain mentioned. 
Another point the Senator from Arizona made is that the language 
relative to don't ask, don't tell does not give the Department of 
Defense the opportunity to consider the impact of the change on morale 
and readiness, recruiting and retention of our troops. Here is what the 
language of our bill does. We were very careful in order to be sure 
there would be a certification that there would be no negative impact 
in terms of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, 
and recruiting and retention.
  We changed the language in the bill so it was not a direct repeal of 
don't ask, don't tell, but rather that that policy is going to stay in 
effect explicitly. This is in subsection C, that don't ask, don't tell 
shall remain in effect until such time that all of the requirements and 
certifications by subsection B are met. If these requirements and 
certifications are not met, section 654 of title 10--that is the don't 
ask, don't tell policy--shall remain in effect.
  One of the certifications that is required before there is a change 
in policy says:

       The implementation of necessary policies and regulations 
     pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments made by 
     subsection F--

  Here is the key language--

     is consistent with the standards of military readiness, 
     military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and 
     retention of the Armed Forces.

  This policy will stay in effect unless and until there is, No. 1, a 
report--which is underway now--which the Secretary of Defense is going 
to provide to the Congress relative to the impact of the change in 
policy. But, secondly, the policy will stay in effect until the 
President transmits--that is unless and until--the President transmits 
to the congressional defense committees a written certification signed 
by the President, Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, stating, again, the standards of military readiness, military 
effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed 
Forces are being met and would be met with a change in policy.
  Those are just two points the Senator from Arizona made that I wish 
to commend at this time. I believe there is going to be opportunity for 
further debate tomorrow something like an hour and a half in the 
morning, although that is being worked on at this time.
  But further debate on this bill can be had by anybody who wishes to 
proceed to it. But I hope we can proceed to the consideration of this 
bill. This is a motion to proceed to consideration of the bill. All the 
rights of filibustering and extended debate will be preserved on the 
bill itself if we can only get to debate the bill. Amendments will be 
available. Either amendments adding or amendments striking will be 
available.
  But we have to get to the bill. I mean, people are making arguments 
about the bill which belong at the time of the debate on the bill. But 
unless we can get to the point where we can debate the bill, it is kind 
of a theoretical debate we are having--whether it is don't ask, don't 
tell, whether it is the DREAM Act, whether it is other things which 
people would either like to change that are in the bill or would like 
to add to the bill.
  As my good friend from Delaware who is presiding at the moment knows, 
there are provisions in this bill that I opposed in committee that I 
would like to see stricken from the bill. But to oppose debate on a 
bill because there are provisions in the bill that we do not like or we 
would like to see added, it seems to me, engages in an exercise which 
is not what the intent of the Senate ever was. We should debate bills. 
We should amend bills. We should offer amendments to strike provisions, 
to add provisions. But to deny the Senate the opportunity to get to the 
point where we are debating on the Defense authorization bill is 
something which seems to me totally unacceptable.
  We need to support our troops. This bill is a bill to support the men 
and women wearing the uniform of this country and their families. One 
can argue there are provisions in this bill which should not be in the 
bill. Fine. Debate them. Vote on them. But to say we should not get to 
the bill which contains provisions so critical for the well being and 
success of our men and women in the Armed Forces, it seems to me, is 
totally inconsistent with what the Armed Services Committee and this 
Senate need to be about, which is providing for the defense and 
security of the country and the well being of the men and women who put 
on the uniform of this country.
  So I hope we will get cloture tomorrow and proceed to the debate, 
which is totally appropriate, on a whole bunch of issues.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________